SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAMME OF WORK ON IMPACTS, VULNERABILITY AND
ADAPTATION:

17-19 OCTOBER 2005

The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) informal
workshop on the development of the five-year programme of work on
impacts, vulnerability and adaptation was held from 17-19 October 2005,
at the Wissenschaftszentrum in Bonn, Germany. More than fifty
participants from Annex I and non-Annex I parties, as well as
non-governmental organizations, were in attendance. The purpose of the
workshop was to develop common ground and understanding on the possible
content, structure, process for implementation and modalities of the
programme of work.

The
workshop was convened following a request from the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary
Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at its
twenty-second session in May 2005, for the UNFCCC Secretariat to
organize, under the guidance of the Chair of the SBSTA, an informal
workshop to facilitate the development of the programme of work on
adaptation before SBSTA 23, with a view to recommending a decision to
COP 11 in November/December 2005.

The
workshop presented an opportunity for parties to exchange views on what
the content of the SBSTA five-year programme of work might be.
Discussion centered on four possible thematic or action areas identified
in decision 1/CP.10, namely: methodologies, data and modelling;
vulnerability assessments; adaptation planning, measures and actions;
and integration into sustainable development. Options for the process of
implementation and modalities of the programme of work were also
addressed. As a basis for discussion, participants used first a
discussion paper prepared by the Secretariat based on submissions by
parties and discussions at the in-session workshop and at the contact
group on adaptation at SBSTA 22, and then an informal summary of the
discussion at the workshop prepared by the Co-Chairs.

The
agenda of the workshop was fully dedicated to a discussion of the
programme of work. On Monday and Tuesday, 17-18 October, participants
exchanged general comments and addressed the possible thematic areas
identified in decision 1/CP.10 and elaborated upon in the discussion
paper. On Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday, 19 October, participants
turned their attention to the Co-Chairs’ informal summary of the
discussion. At the end of the meeting, the Co-Chairs presented a revised
version of the informal summary of the discussion incorporating comments
from the workshop. This revised summary, which is an advance version of
the SBSTA Chair’s summary of the workshop, was not open for comments but
will be posted on the UNFCCC website within a period of two weeks.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNFCCC AND
ADAPTATION

Climate change is considered to be one of the most serious threats to
sustainable development, with adverse impacts expected on the
environment, human health, food security, economic activity and physical
infrastructure. Global climate varies naturally but scientists agree
that rising concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the
Earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes in the climate. According to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of
climate change have already been observed, and scientific findings
indicate that precautionary and prompt action is necessary.

The
international political response to climate change began with the
adoption of the UNFCCC in 1992. The UNFCCC sets out a framework for
action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases in order to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the
climate system. Controlled gases include methane, nitrous oxide and, in
particular, carbon dioxide. The UNFCCC entered into force on 21 March
1994, and now has 189 parties. The parties to the UNFCCC typically
convene once a year in a Conference of the Parties (COP), and twice a
year in meetings of its subsidiary bodies.

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: In December
1997, delegates at COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, agreed to a protocol to the
UNFCCC that commits developed countries and countries making the
transition to a market economy to achieve quantified emissions reduction
targets. These countries, known under the UNFCCC as Annex I parties,
agreed to reduce their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an
average of 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012 (the first
commitment period), with specific targets varying from country to
country. The Protocol also establishes three flexible mechanisms to
assist Annex I parties in meeting their national targets
cost-effectively: an emissions trading system; joint implementation of
emissions-reduction projects between Annex I parties; and the Clean
Development Mechanism, which allows for projects to be implemented in
non-Annex I parties. To date, 156 parties have ratified the Protocol,
including 37 Annex I parties, representing 61.6% of 1990 Annex I
greenhouse gas emissions, meeting the requirements for entry into force
of the Protocol, which took place on 16 February 2005. The first Meeting
of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 1) will take place in
conjunction with COP 11 in Montreal, Canada, from 28 November – 9
December 2005.

ADAPTATION: Adaptation is a
cross-cutting theme of the UNFCCC and is referred to in different
articles. In particular, Convention Article 4.1 states that parties
shall “formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and,
where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to facilitate
adequate adaptation to climate change,” and “cooperate in preparing for
adaptation to the impacts of climate change.” Convention Article 4.4
states that developed country parties shall “assist the developing
country parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects
of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse
effects.” While COP 1 in 1995 addressed funding for adaptation (decision
11/CP.1), it was not until the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords in 2001
that adaptation began to be more widely seen as a prominent area for
action, as set out in decision 5/CP.7 (adverse effects of climate
change).

The
actual process for the development of a structured programme of work on
adaptation began in Milan at COP 9 in December 2003, following the
conclusion of consideration of the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In what is sometimes
referred to as the “Milan process on adaptation,” COP 9 requested the
SBSTA to initiate work on scientific, technical and socioeconomic
aspects of, and vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change
(decision 10/CP.9). SBSTA conducted one pre-sessional workshop on this
matter at SBSTA 19 in December 2003, and two in-session workshops at
SBSTA 20 and 21.

With
decision 1/CP.10 (Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation and
Response Measures), parties reached a new milestone in terms of work on
adaptation, as the COP called for SBSTA to develop a structured
five-year programme of work on the scientific, technical and
socioeconomic aspects, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
This request specified four general issues or thematic areas to be
addressed by the programme of work: methodologies, data and modelling;
vulnerability assessments; adaptation planning, measures and actions;
and integration into sustainable development, in the context of the
terms of reference of the SBSTA as referred to in Convention Article 9.
The COP also invited parties to submit their views on the programme of
work and its implementation.

Parties initiated deliberations on the programme of work in an
in-session workshop at SBSTA 22 in May 2005. The SBSTA Chair prepared a
summary of this workshop containing possible elements of the programme
of work to serve as the basis for further discussions. These were taken
up by a contact group, which continued deliberations on the objective,
scope of work, process, structure, activities, modalities and review of
the programme of work. The contact group met six times and held numerous
informal consultations. However, the programme of work could not be
completed at SBSTA 22, and the text was fully bracketed. In its
conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2005/4), SBSTA agreed to further consider and
elaborate at SBSTA 23 the draft COP decision and its draft annex
containing the possible elements of the programme of work, with a view
to forwarding a draft decision for adoption at COP 11. To facilitate
this, SBSTA also agreed to hold an informal workshop under the guidance
of the Chair of the SBSTA before SBSTA 23, meeting in conjunction with
COP 11 in Montreal, beginning on 28 November 2005.

REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP

Halldór Thorgeirsson, SBSTA Coordinator, UNFCCC Secretariat, welcomed
participants and announced with sadness the passing away of Joke
Waller-Hunter, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, on Saturday, 14 October 2005.
He recalled her work, and noted her down-to-earth, straightforward
personality and the passion with which she worked, emphasizing her
sincere commitment to the principles of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto
Protocol. Thorgeirsson also
noted that Waller-Hunter was particularly interested in developing a
strategic approach to adaptation. Participants observed a minute of
silence.

SBSTA
Chair Abdullatif Salem Benrageb (Libya) reiterated the excellent work
done by Waller-Hunter as UNFCCC Executive Secretary and the many good
things she left behind. Regarding the workshop, he said that despite
common agreement on the urgency of developing the programme of work and
a lack of fundamental differences of opinion on its general content,
there is no common vision on what the focus and actions of the programme
of work should be, and that to address this, the workshop agenda was
fully dedicated to a discussion of these issues. Benrageb pointed to
high-level meetings since SBSTA 22 that addressed the importance of
adaptation and risk management, including the G8 Gleneagles Summit and
the UN World Summit, and expressed hope that the programme of work would
be ready for adoption at COP 11. He asked Kishan Kumarsingh (Trinidad
and Tobago) and Helen Plume (New Zealand) to co-chair the workshop.

Thorgeirsson then presented a discussion paper prepared by the
Secretariat, based on submissions by parties and the in-session workshop
and discussions at SBSTA 22, and which includes options for the possible
content, structure, thematic areas, process of implementation, and
modalities of the programme of work. He identified the broad
requirements that should guide the programme, namely: responsiveness,
inclusiveness, continuity, practicality, action-oriented, and
consistency with SBSTA’s mandate. Noting that all that needs to be done
cannot be covered by SBSTA in five years, he suggested a phased
“two-line” approach for implementation of the programme of work, with a
first line of initial actions that could be launched immediately, and a
parallel, stocktaking activity for which actions would be defined later.
He proposed focusing discussion on the possible content of the programme
of work and on the process of implementation and modalities that may be
used.

In the
initial round of general comments, participants commended the paper as a
basis for discussions, and highlighted the need to focus on the
desirable outcome of the five-year programme of work, noting, inter
alia, the importance of stocktaking, flexibility, and balance.

Canada, supported by South Africa, Austria and many others, urged taking
a broad approach so that the programme of work serves as a catalyst for
other actions outside of SBSTA. The Cook Islands underscored the
importance of several courses of action addressing the urgent needs of
the most vulnerable countries, and with Bangladesh and others, called
for an ad hoc expert group on adaptation. Austria noted the work
of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and of the Ad-Hoc
Technical Expert Group on Biological Diversity and Climate Change, and
Peru drew attention to the upcoming IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR).
Spain highlighted capacity building and dissemination of knowledge as
the general objectives of the programme of work.

Noting
the increase in hurricane intensity, Jamaica stressed attending to the
needs of the most vulnerable countries, while Ukraine emphasized the
needs of all countries.

Japan
noted the limited time before COP 11 and, with China, urged prioritizing
actions relating to the programme of work. Kenya drew attention to the
work on adaptation done by the Consultative Group of Experts on National
Communications from parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (CGE).
Croatia, with others, underscored the need to be proactive, while India
and the Netherlands emphasized engaging governments and NGOs working at
the local level.

POSSIBLE CONTENT, PROCESS AND MODALITIES OF THE PROGRAMME OF WORK

Co-Chair Plume invited general comments on the possible thematic areas
of the programme of work elaborated upon in the paper prepared by the
Secretariat. The US underscored the importance of discussing the
connection between vulnerability, impacts and adaptation, while the UK
called for achieving a balance between the three elements. The UK also
suggested taking into account already existing information. Poland
highlighted that vulnerability depends largely on local and national
conditions, which limits the extent to which SBSTA can identify
vulnerability, and Brazil noted that many actions are likely to extend
beyond the five-year programme of work. China highlighted the inadequate
technical capacity in many developing countries to undertake certain
activities.

METHODOLOGIES, DATA AND MODELLING: Co-Chair Plume then invited a discussion on
methodologies, data and modelling. Highlighting the UNFCCC’s Compendium
of methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and
adaptation to, climate change (adaptation Compendium), the UK stressed
the need to seek updates from parties on the use of the adaptation
Compendium and the development of new methods. Canada emphasized the
need to consider the work of bodies other than the UNFCCC on adaptation.
The Cook Islands noted the role of learning by doing and using multiple
methodologies for pursuing adaptation. Brazil outlined its regional
climate modelling capacities, while Senegal, with Bangladesh, stressed
the need to make global climate models more user-friendly and locally
applicable. Responding to Co-Chair Plume’s questions regarding
South-South cooperation, Brazil elaborated on the need for building
capacity in other South American countries to be able to use the
analyses of the Brazilian regional climate model.

Responding to comments on the resolution of models, the US urged
avoiding discussion of precise details and instead developing notional
categories. SBSTA Chair Benrageb recalled SBSTA’s mandate, and reminded
participants that this is not a negotiating session but that the goal of
the workshop is to lay the groundwork for the programme of work.

On a
call from Bangladesh to downscale models, Austria warned against taking
a narrow approach, noting that shortcomings exist in various areas, such
as lack of data or capacity, and not just in the lack of available
models. The Cook Islands proposed to include resilience indicators and
pointed to other processes where adaptation needs have been identified.
She also called for making the thematic areas more action oriented.
Switzerland suggested ordering items in the proposed thematic areas
before considering further terms of reference. Brazil stressed
identifying pre-existing capacities for adaptation in countries and
institutions.

Co-Chair Kumarsingh underscored the importance of the two-line approach
and of identifying actions rather than defining the exact objectives and
making them fit a thematic area. Bangladesh highlighted a targeted
time-bound approach for each activity. Finland added that it would be
useful to make the distinction between partners and clients in
adaptation activities. Canada, followed by the US and Australia,
suggested a strategic approach to developing the programme of work. The
US, along with Finland and others, suggested that the discussion was
being hamstrung by the four categories in the discussion paper. She
highlighted that methodologies, data and modelling is a crosscutting
area that runs throughout the other thematic areas.

Co-Chair Kumarsingh proposed, and participants agreed, to make the
methodologies, data and modelling thematic area a cross-cutting issue
running throughout the other thematic areas. The UK called for
distinguishing the work to be undertaken at the Convention and at the
national level. Co-Chair Kumarsingh said that the goal of the workshop
was to develop a common understanding that would allow the completion of
the decision text. Uzbekistan stressed the urgency to provide decision
makers with advice on integrating adaptation into development.

Responding to various comments on the level of detail and criteria,
Thorgeirsson stressed the need to prioritize, and cautioned against a
programme of work that would seem overly complex or vague to ministers
attending COP 11, noting that some of the ministers are very concerned
about the impacts of climate change.

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS: On
vulnerability assessments, Switzerland stressed the need to benefit from
already existing information sources. The Netherlands noted the
importance of multidisciplinary efforts involving people working in
alternative sectors as well as decision makers for conducting
vulnerability and impact assessments. The US said that stocktaking might
be more important in some areas than others, and supported by the UK,
suggested looking at regional impacts rather than impacts on specific
parties. The UK, supported by Spain and others, said that one could
capture the information on vulnerability through a broadly-structured
questionnaire that would address methodological issues and costs of
implementation across sectors. Australia noted the need to introduce
action-oriented verbs in the proposed sub-themes under the thematic
areas. Peru suggested including both social and economic impacts as a
necessary component of vulnerability assessments. Bangladesh highlighted
the role of the SBSTA in providing tools to examine economic impacts of
climate change, and Jamaica noted that many of the tools available are
more suitable for developed countries than for developing ones.

ADAPTATION PLANNING, MEASURES AND ACTIONS: On Tuesday, 18 October, participants addressed adaptation
planning, measures and actions. Austria, supported by Poland, emphasized
the importance of including adaptation in national development
strategies. The UK proposed collecting information on country
experiences. He drew attention to the UNFCCC seminar on the development
and transfer of environmentally sound technologies for adaptation held
in Trinidad and Tobago in June 2005, and other work within the
Convention. Senegal stressed the importance of technology transfer and,
with Cuba, noted the need for climate predictions for developing
countries, given increased climate variability. Australia, supported by
the US, proposed combining the list of actions on this thematic area
under three headings: collection and analysis of data, monitoring and
evaluation; promotion and development of analytical tools and technology
transfer; and assessment processes related to decision-making. He added
that agreement on long term targets for adaptation is a political
decision to be taken at the national level and should be addressed
elsewhere. Switzerland emphasized bottom-up approaches that take into
account national experiences with adaptation in different sectors, both
in terms of successes and gaps identified in the national
communications. He also noted the importance of analyses of adaptation
costs, “solidarity mechanisms” and cooperation, and clear governance.

Austria, supported by Japan, and opposed by China, Brazil, Switzerland
and Peru, suggested making a link between long-term targets for
adaptation and mitigation. China, Brazil and others stressed the need to
avoid making the programme of work more complex than necessary by
linking adaptation to mitigation. Japan, supported by Finland,
emphasized that linking adaptation and mitigation would be a useful
addition to cost-benefit analyses of adaptation. He also noted that good
vulnerability assessments are a prerequisite for adaptation planning.
SBSTA Chair Benrageb emphasized the need to build capacity given the
differential capabilities of countries to undertake adaptation.

Co-Chair Plume cautioned against an oversimplification of the thematic
areas identified in the discussion paper and the absence of reference to
short term targets. The Philippines underscored strengthening data
collection and recovery mechanisms, and the Russian Federation proposed
making reference not only to data access but also data preparation.
India noted that adaptation planning should be included in the planning
of infrastructure development projects, and Poland proposed including
social aspects of adaptation. Drawing attention to the actions listed in
decision 1/CP.10, the US, supported by Finland, highlighted the need for
provision of scientific advice. The UK noted the absence of publications
on national adaptation strategies and, with Cuba and others, stressed
the link between adaptation planning and integration into sustainable
development. Canada noted that adaptive capacity naturally links
vulnerability, impacts and adaptation, and cautioned against losing the
focus on adaptation when addressing sustainable development as a
cross-cutting issue. Supported by the Philippines and others, she
suggested including chapeau headings with broad action plans, such as
monitoring and evaluation, under which specific actions could be
identified. The Netherlands stressed considering the long-term
perspective and said that the programme of work should be a
country-driven exercise. Spain called for specific reference to
participatory processes and emphasized the need to identify short-term
results as part of the programme of work.

Australia, with Sudan and others, called for enhancing capacities at the
local level, and Saudi Arabia emphasized the need for an assistance
mechanism. Noting that communication is a key component of adaptation,
he proposed the early establishment of a website for information
dissemination, and added that adaptation implies a lifestyle change and
that a long- term perspective is critical. Switzerland proposed
compiling existing material on adaptation under National Adaptation
Plans for Action and National Communications. Ukraine referred to the
importance of indicators for adaptation.

INTEGRATION INTO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: On integrating adaptation into sustainable development,
Finland emphasized the importance of partnerships, including with local
governments. Maldives, supporting Kenya and Bangladesh, noted its
readiness to move forward towards implementation of a number of
adaptation activities. Senegal, supported by the Cook Islands, stressed
the importance of examining how adaptation activities fit into a larger
sustainable development agenda. The Cook Islands urged taking into
account outputs and short term objectives, and highlighted impacts of
adaptation on sustainable development. With Canada, she suggested that
adaptation success stories can only emerge from demonstration projects.
Samoa emphasized the need to address the balance between vulnerability,
adaptation and impacts, and addressing actual adaptation activities over
stocktaking. Switzerland cautioned against using general tools and
practices for identifying synergies between climate change and
sustainable development. He also noted that vulnerability assessments
are country-dependent and that risk assessment involves value judgments.
With others, he identified the need to provide both policymakers and
stakeholders with better information to enhance resilience of areas such
as economic sectors. The UK highlighted the need to create modalities
for quantifying climate risks as they apply to key sectors and to
conduct vulnerability assessments. Japan emphasized extricating only
those issues in sustainable development that are related to climate
change. Jamaica highlighted that many of the adaptation activities are
becoming increasingly expensive, while Portugal said that adaptation is
both a developed and developing country issue. Thorgeirsson noted that
COP 11 will provide guidance on the allocation of the new US$100 million
funding available through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and that
the two new Secretariat programmes – on support to implementation and on
adaptation, science and technology – could be useful to the programme of
work.

PROCESS AND MODALITIES: Noting
participants’ comments on stocktaking, exchanging information on best
practices and lessons learned, and the potential creation of an ad
hoc expert group, Co-Chair Plume proposed addressing options for the
process of implementation and modalities of the programme of work.
Canada, with Australia, the US and others, said that modalities would
depend on what actions are adopted. The US noted the usefulness of
workshops, while the UK stressed the need to clearly define the nature
and role of a possible ad hoc expert group. Co-Chair Plume said
that a summary of the discussion would be made available during the
afternoon session.

CO-CHAIRS’ INFORMAL SUMMARY OF THE
DISCUSSION

On
Tuesday afternoon, Co-Chair Kumarsingh introduced an informal summary of
the workshop discussion on the programme of work, and asked for general
comments.

Several participants proposed using language from Convention Article 9 (SBSTA),
and the UK proposed to address the issue of consistency with SBSTA’s
mandate in a chapeauparagraph. On the expected outcome of the
programme of work, the UK, with others, noted that the intent of the
programme of work should be to enhance capacity to identify, decide on
and implement adaptation actions.

Switzerland suggested giving priority to stocktaking before proposing
specific actions. Co-Chair Kumarsingh asked participants to focus on
possible specific activities under each thematic area. The US noted that
it is important that this process lead to improvement in the quality of
information collected and that there is a need to identify the target
audience before undertaking activities such as promotion of
understanding of climate risks and vulnerabilities. Australia said that
integration of sustainable development is not a thematic area, and noted
that all countries are vulnerable to climate change. He suggested
clarifying the target audience for improving availability of
socioeconomic information. Peru emphasized that a number of actions
pertaining to capacity building and technical training mentioned in
decision 1/CP.10 were not mentioned in the summary of the discussion.
Co-Chair Kumarsingh responded that capacity building is very much a part
of the framework of the programme of work. Samoa noted the need for
making reference to the needs of the most vulnerable countries, and
Bangladesh stressed that socioeconomic information on vulnerable
populations is essential.

SBSTA
Chair Benrageb reminded participants of the need for a fair and balanced
proposal that has a good chance of being adopted at COP 11.

On
promoting understanding of climate risks, key vulnerabilities and
thresholds of climate change, Austria, opposed by Brazil and Peru,
proposed including reference to forests. Peru suggested instead a
reference to fragile ecosystems.

Canada, supported by Austria, Sudan and many others, stressed the need
to avoid limiting the programme of work to decision 1/CP.10, saying that
the programme of work should serve as a broad framework to stimulate
investment and work outside the Convention. In this regard, she
mentioned Canada’s national government and indigenous communities, as
well as the CGE, as examples of other processes and communities who are
looking for guidance from the UNFCCC on adaptation. The US, with the
Netherlands, called for a reference to sectors and, on SBSTA’s work, she
proposed to use language along the lines that SBSTA “will explore” the
actions identified in the programme of work, instead of using other
verbs such as “promote,” “improve” or “collect.”

Peru,
with Saudi Arabia, Norway and several others, proposed considering
integration as a cross-cutting issue, while Portugal suggested increased
reference to synergies. The Netherlands, supported by Finland, called
for adding explicit reference to local knowledge, while Switzerland
preferred reference to local stakeholders. Norway noted that adaptation
should be mainstreamed into development and this could open new areas of
funding. South Africa disagreed, saying that funding for adaptation
projects should not rely on development funding.

Co-Chair Kumarsingh asked participants to identify the modalities and
time frames of the programme of work. Australia suggested the use of a
compendium or website as a tool for information dissemination.
Switzerland suggested that actions could be initially defined on an
annual or semi-annual basis and subsequently amended at SBSTA meetings.
Responding to Switzerland’s query on the availability of Secretariat
resources, Thorgeirsson noted that the Secretariat’s budget was limited
and that the programme of work is SBSTA’s responsibility, not the
Secretariat’s. He added that most of the adaptation activities would
involve other actors.

Finland stressed the need to identify the form and sources of
information available before deciding on the modality for information
dissemination to users on impacts and vulnerabilities. Jamaica noted
that useful information is included in national communications and,
supported by Kenya, outlined other existing initiatives, including
stakeholder consultations.

Switzerland stressed the need to compile lessons learned before
promoting development and dissemination of methods for impacts and
vulnerability assessments. He stressed that a large amount of
information is available regarding adaptation strategies in the national
communication of Annex I parties. He also said that institutions such as
the Data Distribution Center of the IPCC could provide information on
crosscutting areas for modelling and that the Secretariat could assist
in collecting and making this information available.

Noting
a request in decision 1/CP.10 to organize regional workshops, Peru
offered to host the first one of these workshops. The US, with Finland,
noted that the workshops referred to in decision 1/CP.10 were already
spoken for. Canada said that the UNFCCC could invite its own bodies,
such as the CGE, to conduct workshops. Responding to a question by the
UK on the specific purpose of the regional workshops, Thorgeirsson said
the goal is to reflect on regional needs and priorities but the
programme of work should make the workshops more targeted. Canada, with
Spain, added that regional workshops might be the best means to share
information, discuss opportunities, and integrate other sectors and
institutions. Croatia added that there is a need for separate workshops
where the climate change specialists can interact with the relevant
sectoral representatives. Austria recommended holding in-session
workshops during SBSTA meetings as a forum for parties to report on
lessons learned on adaptation, while the Cook Islands highlighted the
potential role of intersessional working groups.

Spain
proposed that the UNFCCC Secretariat complete and update the current
adaptation Compendium. Switzerland called for specific time frames,
while Japan, supported by the US, noted budget and other limitations and
stressed the need to focus on a five-year programme of work. The US
supported an ad hoc expert group to start the programme of work.

South
Africa, supported by many participants, proposed to have “landmarks” or
deadlines on actions identified to allow feedback for recommendations
and further progress. Thorgeirsson noted that SBSTA will be considering
the IPCC 4AR in 2008 and this would present a good opportunity to
interact with experts. He suggested that a possible request to the IPCC
to report on adaptation issues should not be restricted to the IPCC 4AR,
but also include later research not covered in the assessment report.
Thorgeirsson also noted that there will be a report by the Global
Climate Observing System on systematic observation at SBSTA 23 in
Montreal.

Switzerland called for a strong role of the UNFCCC Secretariat in the
programme of work, particularly in dissemination of information.
Responding to Brazil’s question on the Secretariat’s capacity for
setting up a clearinghouse for disseminating information, Thorgeirsson
replied that the Secretariat does possess the requisite technical but
not the financial resources.

On
Wednesday, 19 October, participants continued discussion of the
Co-Chairs’ informal summary of the discussion. On promotion of
development and dissemination of analytical and decision-making tools,
Austria noted the lack of a compilation on such tools, and said that
this is something a possible questionnaire could address. He also noted
the effectiveness of in-session workshops for sharing experiences. The
Cook Islands, supported by Sudan, stressed the need for rapid
vulnerability assessment tools. Australia, with others, proposed the use
of practical, simple tools to provide guidance on the effectiveness of
adaptation measures, while South Africa stressed the need for evaluation
of the programme of work itself. The Russian Federation and the
Philippines noted the importance of including information on unusual
climate conditions and of engaging country experts for this purpose.

The UK
noted the lack of readily available methodologies to assess adaptation
measures, while Jamaica noted that measures could be gauged by their
effectiveness. Sudan called for some kind of good practice guidance on
adaptation, and with Jamaica and others, emphasized reference to
adaptation planning. Jamaica and others suggested requesting a special
report on adaptation from the IPCC. Cuba proposed making use of existing
information in the national communications and expert bodies within the
Convention, such as the CGE and the Expert Group on Technology Transfer.
The Philippines, supported by the Cook Islands and Japan, highlighted
the linkages between assessments, adaptation and integration, and
suggested that these should be reflected in a database on adaptation
that should also include useful experiences of developing countries.

The US
proposed stocktaking as an initial action. Noting that adaptation
measures include policies as well as infrastructure, Australia,
supported by the Cook Islands, Saudi Arabia and others, called for
different types of stocktaking.

Highlighting the importance of participatory processes, the Cook Islands
proposed reference to international cooperation “among parties and other
organizations.” She also noted the need to take into account local
knowledge and to enhance resilience. The Netherlands emphasized the role
of the private sector in international cooperation and the need to
examine and extend the adaptation agenda to relevant sustainable
development institutions. Bangladesh, with China and Thailand,
emphasized the importance of international cooperation and bilateral
collaboration in capacity building for impact and vulnerability
assessments. Sudan highlighted the need for greater cooperation between
the Convention and multilateral processes, while Brazil noted the
importance of national focal points in promoting synergies of the
programme of work with other multilateral environmental agreements.

On
possible workshops, Finland, supported by the US and Canada, proposed
structuring workshops on adaptation along four themes: tools and data
requirements and availability; critical issues; monitoring and
evaluation tools; and best practices, and the US, supported by Saudi
Arabia, stressed a sectoral approach to the workshops. The Cook Islands
noted the need for flexibility in structuring the workshops and
cautioned against duplication of work. Thorgeirsson noted the need for
guidance on specifying a target audience for the workshops.

Japan
highlighted the benefits of various adaptation actions, while the UK
emphasized the need to bring the users and producers of climate
information together at the regional and national levels. The US said
that an identification of the audience for actions would help to better
define the modalities. Finland noted the importance of influencing
decision-makers, who are the major audiences of the programme of work.
The Philippines supported the Netherlands in stressing the importance of
incorporating the views of those outside the convention, such as the
business sector, and highlighted some of the country efforts in
reinforcing the relationship of users and producers of information.

REVISED SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION: Co-Chair Kumarsingh then presented a revised version of
the Co-Chairsï¿½ informal summary incorporating the previous discussions.
The draft was not open for comment but was an advance version of what
would be presented as the SBSTA Chairï¿½s summary of the workshop
discussion.

The
informal summary of the discussions states that the programme of work
would consist of three thematic areas, namely: impacts and
vulnerability; adaptation planning, measures and actions; and
integration. Methodologies, data and modelling appear as a cross-cutting
issue. The summary also notes that the expected outcome of the programme
of work is enhanced capacity at multiple levels to identify and
understand impacts and vulnerabilities and possible adaptation
responses, and to enable countries to select and implement effective and
high priority adaptation actions. The programme of work is also expected
to facilitate the implementation of decision 1/CP.10, where relevant.

The
Co-Chairsï¿½ summary of the discussion further identifies sub-themes for
each thematic area. On impacts and vulnerability, it identifies:

promoting development and
dissemination of impact and vulnerability assessment tools and
methods;

improving access to high quality data
and information on current and future climatic variability and
extreme events;

stimulating adaptation research and
technology and dissemination of adaptation solutions and
technologies; and

promoting international cooperation to
assist vulnerable countries in enhancing their resilience and
managing climate risks, giving priority to the most vulnerable
countries.

On
integration, the discussion summary identifiesenhancing
synergies between actions to build resilience to climate risks with
other sustainable development objectives. Moreover, the Co-Chairsï¿½
summary of the discussion states that: the programme of work will
consist of both short-term specific activities, and activities requiring
additional information before they are launched; and activities would be
guided by the general requirements of: responsiveness, inclusiveness,
continuity, practicality, and action-orientation. The summary also notes
possible modalities, including workshops, limited ad hoc working
groups of experts, web-based resources, questionnaires, ï¿½targeted
submissionsï¿½ from parties, and different types of stocktaking.

CLOSING REMARKS

Along
with Co-Chair Plume, Co-Chair Kumarsingh noted the very constructive
discussion in the workshop that would provide valuable guidance towards
a decision in Montreal at COP 11. SBSTA Chair Benrageb thanked the
government of Canada and others who had provided funding for the
informal workshop, the Secretariat, the Co-Chairs and the participants,
and brought the meeting to a close at 1:11 pm.

CREATING THE CLIMATE FOR CHANGE ï¿½ THE SECOND SUSTAINABLE
ENERGY FINANCE ROUNDTABLE: This roundtable
will take place on 27 October 2005, in New York. This event will follow
the UNEP Finance Initiative Global Roundtable to be held between 26-27
October 2005. For more information, contact: Eric Usher, UNEP Energy
Branch; tel: +33 (0)1-44-37-76-14; e-mail: eric.usher@unep.fr; or Paul
Clements-Hunt, UNEP Finance Initiative; tel: +41 (0)22-917-8116; e-mail;
pch@unep.ch;
internet:
http://www.sefi-roundtable.org/

XII WORLD WATER CONGRESS:
Organized by the International Water Resource Association, this
conference will be held from 22-25 November 2005, in New Delhi, India.
For more information contact: G.N. Mathur, Adhering Committee of
International Water Resources Association; tel: +91-11-2611-5984; fax:
+91-11-2611-6347; e-mail:
info@worldwatercongress.org; internet:
http://wc.worldwatercongress.org:5050/index.jsp

FIRST MEETING OF PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND
ELEVENTH CONFERENCE OF PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC: The first Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
(COP/MOP 1) is taking place in conjunction with COP 11 of the UNFCCC
from 28 November to 9 December 2005, in Montreal, Canada. For more
information, contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax:
+49-228-815-1999; e-mail:
secretariat@unfccc.int; internet:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php

Joke
Waller-Hunter (1946-2005)
In fond memory.

This issue of the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by Asmita Bhardwaj and Marï¿½a Gutiï¿½rrez.
The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston
James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the
Government of the United States of America (through the
Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the Government of
Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom (through
the Department for International Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of
Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment
- BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian
Ministry of Environment. General Support for the Bulletin
during 2005 is provided by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water Management, the Ministry of
Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Sweden, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Ministry of Environment and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, SWAN
International, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through
the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES)
and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research
Institute - GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin into French has been provided by
the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) and
the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the
translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into
Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of Environment of
Spain. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in
non-commercial publications with appropriate academic
citation. For information on the Bulletin, including
requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director
of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.